Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 19 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 21 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


May 20

[edit]

05:48:38, 20 May 2022 review of submission by Sanchit.seth

[edit]

First Review of the draft was completed in couple of days. The draft was rejected and was suggested to add more sources. Second Draft was submitted long ago but has not got any reviews to that. Is there a possibility of fast tracking the process of publishing Sanchit.seth (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sanchit.seth There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. That your first review was relatively quick was pure luck. Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order(it is not a queue). It could be reviewed in the next five minutes, or five months from now; as noted on your draft, there are 3,203 pending submissions waiting for review. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sanchit.seth, what is the source for the second paragraph? You have added significant information in last 2 edits without any additional sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:48, 20 May 2022 review of submission by 71.241.203.100

[edit]


71.241.203.100 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Why rejected I think it’s fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.203.100 (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to be writing a Wikipedia article. This is an over-detailed advertizement, and all the sources are incredibly thin on details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:18:48, 20 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Smarttventhusiast

[edit]


Hi there! I've been trying to create an article on VIDAA - a company and eponymous OS for smart TVs. The most recent comment I've gotten was: Citations fail the depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) standard. Product announcements, partnerships and statistics are routine in nature and not considered significant coverage.

I would like to better understand the depth of coverage standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH). It states that "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." I believe that the information provided in the article should be sufficient. Can someone please explain what exactly is missing in the article for it to be accepted? Are the mentions too short? ARe the sources not reliable enough?

Thank you and kind regards, Smarttventhusiast

Smarttventhusiast (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smarttventhusiast Your draft just documents the routine business activities of the company; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, the mere reporting of routine business activities, and other brief mentions do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:38, 20 May 2022 review of submission by Oscarfelix.may

[edit]

The latest reason for rejection was that the subject was not notable enough. Steuart Padwick has grown in prominence and last year produced some major works for Glasgow - The Hope Sculpture project. This has been added as well as some cleaning up of the entry. Oscarfelix.may (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscarfekix.may: The sources do not demonstrate notability. If the best sourcing is about a sculpture, then the article should be about the sculpture. The article has been rejected and will not be considered further. TechnoTalk (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:02, 20 May 2022 review of submission by LYRIC HAWKINS

[edit]

I would like to know why my Article has been flagged for deletion... I am the Copyright Owner of all the content within my article and I have also made this information available on several other website sources across the Internet. This is the Original Description and Title of my New True Crime Novel ROTT3N~$~APPLE DECISIONS OF A WALL STREET THUG || BL3$$3ED & H8'D!

PLEASE ACCEPT AND DO NOT DELETE!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LYRIC HAWKINS

SOCIAL MEDIA: @LYRICHAWKINSMT LYRIC HAWKINS (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted as G12 (Pro Tip: If you've published the content anywhere else you cannot then use it on Wikipedia without actively re-releasing that content under Wikipedia's licence as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike is fundamentally incompatible with standard "all-rights-reserved" copyright) and user blocked as a promotion-only account. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:11, 20 May 2022 review of submission by K.N.Koch

[edit]

After changing the whole text already because of having the review that it reads like a newspaper article last year, I just got the same review again. Therefore I want to go into detail to know why exactly the reviewer came to this conclusion? Is it because of the writing style? There are no peacock words used at all? Or are there still not enough references given? Or what else needs to be changed until it may fit the guidelines? Thanks for helping a desperate creator!

K.N.Koch (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K.N.Koch, as the reviewer commented, WP:BLP require in-line citations for each fact. As of right now, you have a somewhat rambling biography of the person without any indication where the information came from.Slywriter (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:22, 20 May 2022 review of draft by 2405:204:820A:C37:0:0:197A:C0A1

[edit]


I want to publish my page on Wikipedia to know world about my product. But facing problem s

2405:204:820A:C37:0:0:197A:C0A1 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just blatant advertising and nothing to indicate any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor: Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about a new invention, as we are by definition never the first one to report something. We are only interested in what others have previously said about a subject. Therefore, you need to first get reputable and independent journalists or book authors or documentary film makers etc. to feature your product, and someone will probably one day write up a Wikipedia article based on their coverage. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:16, 20 May 2022 review of submission by BDC8888

[edit]


Hi there,

My draft for my first article has been rejected. Please may I have some clarity as to why this is so I can improve for future reference :)

All the best BDC8888 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles written about the website in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. If there are no sources then we can’t have an article about them. The draft was just advertising too. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_May_20&oldid=1089848385"